Video: Marco Rubio makes the case for interventionism

posted at 4:41 pm on April 25, 2012 by Allahpundit

As I said on Monday, I was keen to hear how he’d apply his McCainian outlook to the conundrum of how much longer to stay in Afghanistan. In some ways, the question of whether to intervene in Syria is easy: No one’s calling for boots on the grounds or (at this point) planes in the sky and the public likely isn’t paying enough attention to have a strong fixed opinion either way. It’s a question of providing material support to Assad’s enemies, and Americans are usually mellow about material support. But what about Afghanistan? Opinion, including GOP opinion, has tanked and thousands of men are still in harm’s way. Does Rubio support staying the course until the Taliban sue for peace or some form of withdrawal? What about a Gitmo prisoner transfer as a means of rapprochement to get them to the bargaining table? I figured he’d take this subject on if only because America’s decade-long drift there naturally informs any voter’s assessment of the risks and rewards of interventionism these days. When to intervene is a hard question but when to end an intervention once begun is harder, and more relevant than ever now that Obama’s set to start hammering the point that the war is ending. According to Rubio’s prepared remarks, though, he mentions Afghanistan only three times and two of those are in passing. Too bad. A subject for another day, I hope.

In fairness, the point of today’s talk wasn’t to delve deeply into policy specifics but to brand himself as a leader of the next generation of interventionists in the Senate. (He was introduced by Joe Lieberman and, as you’ll see, took care to praise Lieberman’s foreign-policy example, thus leading to this headline.) The most interesting part to me was his Bushian embrace of democracy abroad, notwithstanding the Islamist pandora’s box opened by the Arab Spring:

The spread and success of political and economic freedom in the Middle East is in our vital interest. It will certainly present challenges, as newly enfranchised societies elect leaders whose views and purposes oppose and even offend ours. But in the long term, because governments that rule by the consent of the governed must be responsive to the material needs and demands of their people, they are less likely to engage in costly confrontations that harm their economies and deprive their people of the opportunity to improve their circumstances.

That’s neoconservatism 101, similar to what Reuel Marc Gerecht told NRO during the Egyptian revolution about having to tolerate the inevitable rise of the Muslim Brotherhood at first in order to arrive at a more secular Egypt later. Is it really true, though, that an Egypt — or a Saudi Arabia, or a China — that’s more democratic will be less confrontational on the world stage? I’m a lot less sure than he is that economic self-interest is a reliable trump card against popular nationalist or religious impulses.

Then there’s the matter of red ink:

Faced with historic deficits and a dangerous national debt, there has been increasing talk of reducing our foreign aid budget. But we need to remember that these international coalitions we have the opportunity to lead are not just economic or military ones. They can also be humanitarian ones as well. In every region of the world, we should always search for ways to use U.S. aid and humanitarian assistance to strengthen our influence, the effectiveness of our leadership, and the service of our interests and ideals.

When done effectively, in partnership with the private sector, faith-based organizations and our allies, foreign aid is a very cost-effective way not only to export our values, but to advance our security and economic interests.

He’ll always be on firm ground among Republicans in protecting defense spending but foreign aid is bound to be a flashpoint between him and, say, Rand Paul as they inevitably clash on this subject in the years ahead. In fact, someone really needs to organize that debate — Rubio vs. Paul on interventionism in an age of budget-balancing. Brookings? AEI? C’mon.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

This guy is so naive that he fell for the MSM propaganda about the Arab Spring and helped Obama in Egypt and Libya. He is also a police-stater who support the unconstitutional NDAA bill, which allows the president to imprison people indefinitely and deny them their Constitutional rights.

When to intervene is a hard question but when to end an intervention once begun is harder

Anyone with a brain and a clue knows we should have gotten out of Afcrapistan years ago. It is Operation Enduring Insanity, not Operation Enduring Freedom. It is a Trillion Dollar Bridge to Nowhere. Rubio thinks the lives and limbs of American troops are his personal play toys. He can go F himself.

Yay, another worthless politician advocating spending American blood and treasure intervening in non-threatening internal affairs of small countries (big countries like Russia and China America will never bully, since they can legitimately fight back.)

Rubio is an embarrassment and only managed to pass himself off some kind of Tea Party anti-establishment candidate by grace of his opponent being Crist.

Obama never had the guts to win either of these wars. I feel sorry for the good people left in the ME. And, sorry that my country elected a bowing buffoon who chose to let our good men and women in uniform keep dying instead of doing what he was going to do all along–cut and run.

I’d like it if the intervening came with more precision munitions and fewer soldiers on the ground.

Bishop on April 25, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Have you read The Pentagon’s New Map? It puts things into perspective. The basic issue is that the world is these days so “small” that the goings on in small states can no longer be ignored as 9/11 demonstrated where a bunch of nobodies could sit around up in the Hindu Kush over a meal of goat and plan an attack on the US that killed more people than Pearl Harbor.

We can no longer ignore the conditions that enable that sort of thing. That is one of the major problems I have with the Ronulan foreign policy and defense position. The idea that people will be nice if you are nice and that you wait until AFTER you suffer an attack to even build a military force is stupid. If you politely turn down that mugger when he asks for your wallet is he less likely to stab you?

I’d love to hear the response of the interventionist crowd like Rubio if the Chinese army showed up on our doorstep one day and said, “You know, America, we really don’t like your leadership or your system of government, and we think our way is better, so we are going to remove your government by force of arms and ‘help’ you install a new one more inline with our ideals of how the world should work.”

To some dimwitted conservatives, the term “intervention” means bombing arabs, islamists, Christian Serbs, or other bad guys. Ergo it’s a good, patriotic, macho American thing – like barbeque – and what self-respecting conservative doesn’t like BBQ – or similarly, bombing people that need to be bombed? So they see this as a good thing. What they don’t get, and never will, is that “intervention” really means giving America’s money to foreign countries, corrupt regimes, and people who have no love for America. Intervention is really 95% well-meaning liberal socialist welfare applied on a global scale. “Interventionism” is midnight basketball for the global hood.

Vote for Obama, he closed Guantanamo, lowers the deficit, home prices are up, unemployment is down, less people on food stamps, budget passed every year, Solyndra is successful, we built a pipeline, gas prices are low, fast and furious saved lives, dogs weren’t eaten.

The U.S. Army still does have some truth tellers like LTC Daniel L. Davis, but honest and patriotic Army Officers like him http://armedforcesjournal.com/2012/02/8904030 are today the exception rather than the rule. Clearly he will never be promoted again in today’s career uber alles army. But always remember even if troops are dispatched on a bird-brained sociology experiment, with them being used as lab rats, like in Operation Enduring Insanity by a crazed oligarchy of liars, you must support their mission!

“What I saw bore no resemblance to rosy official statements by U.S. military leaders about conditions on the ground.

Entering this deployment, I was sincerely hoping to learn that the claims were true: that conditions in Afghanistan were improving, that the local government and military were progressing toward self-sufficiency. I did not need to witness dramatic improvements to be reassured, but merely hoped to see evidence of positive trends, to see companies or battalions produce even minimal but sustainable progress.

Instead, I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level.

When it comes to deciding what matters are worth plunging our nation into war and which are not, our senior leaders owe it to the nation and to the uniformed members to be candid — graphically, if necessary — in telling them what’s at stake and how expensive potential success is likely to be. U.S. citizens and their elected representatives can decide if the risk to blood and treasure is worth it.

Likewise when having to decide whether to continue a war, alter its aims or to close off a campaign that cannot be won at an acceptable price, our senior leaders have an obligation to tell Congress and American people the unvarnished truth and let the people decide what course of action to choose. That is the very essence of civilian control of the military. The American people deserve better than what they’ve gotten from their senior uniformed leaders over the last number of years. Simply telling the truth would be a good start. ” – LT. COL. DANIEL L. DAVIS

Rubio is a small little immature kindergarten man who seems to be incapable of learning anything about foreign policy and anything about islam.

Vote for Obama, he closed Guantanamo, lowers the deficit, home prices are up, unemployment is down, less people on food stamps, budget passed every year, Solyndra is successful, we built a pipeline, gas prices are low, fast and furious saved lives, dogs weren’t eaten.

Rusty Allen on April 25, 2012 at 5:10 PM

yes, the clusterfark that was the Dubya administration can be fixed in 3 years during a worldwide economic crash *sigh* god republicans are seriously morons they act like Obama inherited a surplus and not 2 wars, a Homeland Security Dept, Medicare part D, massive tax cuts, etc. all unpaid for!

SHOCKA..angryed regurgitates the lame talking points he learned at HuffPo and from Olbermann, Maddow and Schultz at MSDNC!!! He’s about 3 posts away from calling Fox News…Faux News or Fox Noise or something really edgy like that. His obsessions with hard-ons is a little disconcerting as well. Guess the Obama campaign better send him another poster.

I’m tired of American lives being lost trying to spread democracy in the middle east. We need to cut foreign aid, get our troops out of the middle east and put them on the border to protect America! Leave the savages to sort themselves out.

I have no problem putting the right soldiers down to find and suppress these idiots, but when the sods are found we should smother them in high-yield explosives and move on to the next group.

Bishop on April 25, 2012 at 5:13 PM

In twenty years are military is probably going to be more robot than man. I don’t know if that is a good thing or not. Probably means more wars in the future, as there will be fewer political consequences.

When done effectively, in partnership with the private sector, faith-based organizations and our allies, foreign aid is a very cost-effective way not only to export our values, but to advance our security and economic interests.

Is that so ?
So how does it advance our security and economic interests when our borders are unsecure and we don’t even know who is busting in and why ? when we don’t even know who is getting on taxpayer dole just because they can ?

1. Nice guy
2. Smart
3. Has a bright future in politics
4. Conservative
5. Absolutely not qualified for VP (and by extension, POTUS). Let’s see Marco take a few on the chin, and/or propose and push through some meaningful legislation by garnering support not only from his colleagues but the citizenry also. For me, its a lack of experience…and thats all. And that experience will come in time.

Vote for Obama, he closed Guantanamo, lowers the deficit, home prices are up, unemployment is down, less people on food stamps, budget passed every year, Solyndra is successful, we built a pipeline, gas prices are low, fast and furious saved lives, dogs weren’t eaten.

Rusty Allen on April 25, 2012 at 5:10 PM

yes, the clusterfark that was the Dubya administration can be fixed in 3 years during a worldwide economic crash *sigh* god republicans are seriously morons they act like Obama inherited a surplus and not 2 wars, a Homeland Security Dept, Medicare part D, massive tax cuts, etc. all unpaid for!

DBear on April 25, 2012 at 5:16 PM

I think I mentioned this on another thread. You’re a effing idiot. You’re boy promised to fix all of those things. You saying he’s a liar or totally incompetent.

What does a economic crash that happened close to 4 years ago have to do with closing Gitmo, throwing billions at failed companies like Solyndra et al, or the Fast & Furious debacle? And it’s Bushes fault the Democrat controlled senate hasn’t passed a budget in 3 years? That an all out war on the coal and oil industries by the OBama administration isn’t Obama’s fault?

Rubio is the neo-con king of the younger generation. I hope it is an albatross around the neck of his political career.

FloatingRock on April 25, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing. When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. –Dwight D. Eisenhower, 5 star General and 34th President of the United States of America.

Someone also refresh my memory – since when is Rubio an expert
on foreign policy? What is his experience in this regard?

That said, no more major wars or “interventions”. I like the idea that someone (most likely out of Israel) hacked into Iran’s nuclear system and screwed it up. I like the idea of strategic strikes either by our elite forces or bombs targeting specific sites. Go in under cover of darkness, strike and leave. If they don’t straighten out their act, do it again.

If anyone comes after us, give the citizens warning to leave and lay the big one on them. No ground forces.

Also, no money for rebuilding. Our country’s infrastructures are
going to hell and we have rebuilt Iraq, etc.

Keep the defense budget along with R & D development at a high
level in order to let the enemies know that they had better not
even try to tangle with us.

Spend time and money on expanding space stations. I have an inkling that sometime in the future Star Wars will be our reality.
Russia and China will have theirs; we will be sitting ducks.

Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing. When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. –Dwight D. Eisenhower, 5 star General and 34th President of the United States of America.

VorDaj on April 25, 2012 at 5:22 PM

At least get the quote right, he never said it was an invention of Hitler, geez. The sentiment is similar, but you have absolutely got Ike’s quote wrong.

Q. Ray L. Scherer, National Broadcasting Company: Mr. President, there seem to be increasing suggestions that we should embark on a preventive war with the Communist world, some of these suggestions by people in high places. I wonder, sir, if you would care to address yourself to that proposition.

THE PRESIDENT. All of us have heard this term “preventive war” since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time, if we believe for one second that nuclear fission and fusion, that type of weapon, would be used in such a war–what is a preventive war?

I would say a preventive war, if the words mean anything, is to wage some sort of quick police action in order that you might avoid a terrific cataclysm of destruction later.

A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn’t preventive war; that is war.

I don’t believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn’t even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing.

“Speak softly, and carry a big stick, but don’t be an interventionist neocon!”

Theodore Roosevelt said that, and today there’s no case for interventionism. Intervention in sovereign affairs is a last resort, and fraught with danger, as it means war. And interventionist policy is no longer in favor, with the Paulites, or with most conservatives also, or with the vast vast majority of Americans at large.
And, one day we are going to bite off more than we can chew, especially if we keep using up our international goodwill. Other countries, such as Russia or China, can only stand so much interventionist action. So play the intervention card with caution, and sparingly. No more Libyas! (As Marco and McCain were in favor of!)

Wish he hadn’t read it but had spoken off the cuff as in other speeches but, overall, it’s a good speech. He still optimistic about America.

Calls out China, the UN Security Council, and Putin by name. I’m not sure of his prognosis of a post-Assad Syria (why he’s optimistic about what’s going to fill the vacuum) but he’s obviously aware of the situation regarding Iran and seems committed to opposing a nuclear Iran.

Compare this speech, in particular the spirit in which it is delivered, with ANYTHING Obama, or anyone on the Left, is even RUMORED to have presented regarding their awareness of what’s really going on in the world.

In 2012, it is our survival as a Republic. So, as much as I adore Marco Rubio, it is not that time. Thankfully, Rubio has acknowledged this fact.

These are very serious times. Obama has weakened us. This places a tremendous burden on Romney. I am confident that Romney can pick up this deflated ball left by Obama and run with it. It’s going to be a slog.

the VEEP choice is a hard one. It shouldn’t be decided with popularity, it should be chosen with clarity and focus.

Romney, himself will make that choice. Leave him alone on this for a bit. He’ll come through.

How about this: religious socialist intent on sacrificing his nation’s wealth to every horde of barbarians he can find in a vain attempt to educate them into voting for their theocratic/fascist dictator and build their infrastructure in a thankless suicidal last great leap off the cliff of national bankruptcy and annihilation of the US dollar.

In fact as we already know from both the Bush and Obama Admins and the Pentagon, one of our greatest threats to National Security is MORE DEBT!!!! So Rubio’s point is really self defeating, unless when we nation build we are planning on looting the national resources of the new nation?

While there may be a good case to be made for intervention in specific cases…there is no case to be made for “Foreign aid”, we’re friggin broke. Pretty simple stuff….and I don’t care to hear the counter argument from Rinos, I’m just not interested.

If the GOP needs to find a way to route tax money to defense contractors…they’re going to have to think outside the box…maybe a rebirth of the aerospace industry or lunar mining or some other project that has the potential to be debt neutral might be the answer? Don’t know, don;t care….more war is a non-starter right now.

Who here wants to relive 2004 – 2008? Because that’s what you’re going to get with more intervention, war and nation building.

All I see here is the GOP paving the way forward to their usual games…they simply didn’t get the message in 2010…that’s what I hear from today’s speech.

On one hand our involvement in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm were presented as instances in which America was willing to fight to free the oppressed, support international Democracy, forestall despotism and so on.

But nowadays it seems that many Conservatives are against these ideals as they apply to military action. However, does that mean that they were wrong in 1917, 1941, 1950 and 1991? If so, then that means that we as a group have to say that those instances were just because they happened “back in the day”, but doing the same thing now is not acceptable…because it’s “now”?

I certainly don’t want to see any more Americans die and become maimed for those who may or may not appreciate it and help us out should we be in immediate jeopardy from a foreign power. But, except for a few here and there, most of us who took the Oath knew full well that it meant Uncle Sam could send us wherever, whenever he wanted…that’s what we trained for and that’s what we were paid for. However, no one wants to go through that for any reason short of protecting America or really doing something to protect the weak abroad.

I think if we asked for combat volunteers within our already all-volunteer military, most would sign up for a chance to fight or support the fight in Syria or wherever.

Great-just what we need-another McCain,Graham,Lieberman acolyte that actually thinks the squandering of more American blood and treasure on behalf of a bunch of savages who hate us and will never come close to adopting the freedoms inherent in our democracy.How many more years of this crap are we going to endure so McCain can exact some perverse revenge for his capture and Graham can go overseas to ogle our men in uniform.Between this speech and his musings about a GOP Dream Act-Rubio has tanked in my estimation.

Dr. ZhivBlago,
There may be times on a case by case basis where intervention is worthy of American blood and treasure. I question the timing and the intent of this speech on grounds of pure common sense. At a time when the GOP should be unifying, they orchestrate a foreign policy speech that is divisive within the conservative movement.

Bad strategy, bad tactics, wrong place, wrong time….its the economy stupid….why give libertarians and people against never ending war an excuse to abandon Romney…sheer idiocy! I am guessing that the speech is designed to reassure the defense industrial complex that ….help is on the way. Using the pretext of necessary interventionalism.
also note the Alinsky tactic of isolating and demonizing those who are too conservative…here’s what Rubio said,”if you go far enough to the right, you wind up on the left” …wow…wtf? Suffice to say I am non plused by Rubio’s speech, I know where the GOP is coming from…and its just not the right message right now.

This nation has a lot of problems, here, within our own borders, ‘wars’ if you will, that have to be fought and won…our intervention in Syria or our non-intervention in Syria for example just doesn’t make the radar. If we are going to take on every murderous despot let me ask you…are you ready to take on Russia and China? If not, what’s the point?
As we lurch into the 21st century rest assured the coming wars will be fought not by guys with night vision goggles and stealth helicopters, it will be fought by drones or by hackers with a backlit keyboard taking down infrastructure and defense shields with a keystroke…if we are to fight and win these wars we had better start husbanding our resources because our two biggest enemies, China and Russia, are miles ahead of us in that regard.

Great-just what we need-another McCain,Graham,Lieberman acolyte that actually thinks the squandering of more American blood and treasure on behalf of a bunch of savages who hate us and will never come close to adopting the freedoms inherent in our democracy.How many more years of this crap are we going to endure so McCain can exact some perverse revenge for his capture and Graham can go overseas to ogle our men in uniform.Between this speech and his musings about a GOP Dream Act-Rubio has tanked in my estimation.

redware on April 25, 2012 at 7:25 PM

We don’t need it, or want it. We need to select a vp that is not among the few that are of the “blatant ultra-neocon” mold. Seriously. To have been for O’s Libya kinetic action takes the cake. From the start, while for years Kadafi had become mild and western friendly, in the “rebels” we knew we were supporting… our enemy! No more “promote democracy” with our blood and $.

Excellent points. Like I said, it’s a tough issue, at least for me because you have to weigh values on one hand and real world practicalities on the other…the point about biting off more than we can chew and being spread too thin to defend ourselves against the Communist regimes in Moscow and Beijing is something I readily agree with. Certainly all wars are political when you come right down to it.

Personally, I am supportive of our servicemen and women taking out Islamic terrorists, since they have done so much harm to us and will continue to do so if given the opportunity.

Lastly, it would seem that we are steadily losing the various non-combatant wars of which you speak. Our domestic enemies, particularly the Communists know they can win through subterfuge, and our foreign enemies in Russia and China are turning the tables on us economically as they had experienced via (mostly) the Reagan presidency.

I wouldn’t call Madison a troll, but I would call him something about as bad and quite unprintable. I’ve had experience with his unwarranted conclusion jumping over the Greenroom, and he is quite the idiot. I also note that he refused to define Neocon. I would say the reasons is simple, he is ignorant of what they are.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 25, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Wilson campaigned on the line “he kept us out of war.” We now know, he wanted us in the war all along. We had no interest at risk in the war. In fact, the whole thing has been rightfully described as a family spat. Wilson was the first Neocon, and that campaign failed just as the current crop of Neocons have failed in the middle east.

WW1 was wrong because it paved the way for Hitler and WW2. WW2 made Stalin, which gave us Korea and Vietnam. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. These wars do not serve our interests.

The current crop of Neocons are what is left of the hawkish wing of the Democrat party. They are quite unrealistic about human nature, and what brought us to the point where we are. Anyone that seriously thinks you can form a western style republic among a people who are not heirs of the long march from ancient Athens to 1787 Philadelphia is beyond help.

Neocons are beyond help. And now we are bankrupt because the Neocons also think you can have endless war and an entitlement state. Welcome to the real world. And now, we are about to hollow out the military because we can’t pay for it anymore and, consequently, will not be able to defend our actual interests as they are threatened. You can thank the the Neocons, BigGov “conservatives” all.

Dondero, you sure have been peddling your ignorance for quite awhile. You are no libertarian, even though you think you are. There is no such thing as Hawk libertarianism. Libertarianism is built upon the principle of non-initiation of force; that is, that force is not justified against someone who has not used force against you. The principle of non-interventionism is grounded in this libertarian core value.

You are nothing but a disgruntled ex-employee of Paul’s who rightly fired you.

So it’s flame bait and trolling to throw a question back at you when you’re questioning others? There was no insult in my post, only an observation of your regular misuse of terms. Aren’t you touchy? Does it have something to do with the fact that you’re angry that I called you out for dodging inoffensive, straightforward, honest questions and repeating talking points without addressing anyone else’s?

I wouldn’t call Madison a troll, but I would call him something about as bad and quite unprintable. I’ve had experience with his unwarranted conclusion jumping over the Greenroom, and he is quite the idiot. I also note that he refused to define Neocon. I would say the reasons is simple, he is ignorant of what they are.

Quartermaster on April 25, 2012 at 8:33 PM

What’s funny is I don’t even know who you are. However, I was not asked to define “Neocon”, so you’re a liar to claim I refused to answer a question I wasn’t asked. Shocker.

As to your assertion that I don’t know, yes, that must be the case, given how often I use the term “paleocon”. You saw right through my cunning wall of deception, you did! Bully for you!